computer_move_to_other_organization

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description contains no behavioral information. It does not disclose what happens during the move (e.g., whether it is destructive, requires specific permissions, or is reversible). With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, which it fails to meet.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at two words, but this brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness. While it avoids verbosity, it is not appropriately sized for a tool with nested objects and multiple parameters; it lacks front-loaded key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of moving a computer between organizations (nested objects, multiple IDs), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'move' means operationally, nor does it provide any context about return values or side effects. The rich schema partially compensates, but overall completeness is low.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter individually described (e.g., 'Override the default organization'). The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but since the schema already provides adequate semantic details, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Move Computer' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'computer_move_to_other_organization'. It restates the name without adding any specificity—e.g., moving a computer to a different organization—which is already implied by the name. It fails to clarify the scope or distinguish it from other computer-related tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'computer_update_for_edit' or 'computer_disable_protection'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when this operation is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.